Chapter 9: Groups, norms, and conformity
What’s it about?
(Social Psychology pp. 306–349)
This chapter is about how, when, and why people conform to group norms. People
conform to group norms because of their need to master the world, and the need to be
connected by others. Conforming to group norms satisfies our need for mastery, because
people believe that consensus tells something about reality and gives us feelings of
connectedness. This is because conforming to group norms results in attaining a positive
and valued social identity, and in winning respect from other group members. Most
groups initially lean in one direction and, after group discussion, the group’s initial
average position becomes more extreme.
Minority viewpoints can alter a group’s consensus when they offer an alternative
consensus, remain consistent, have a balance between similarity and difference from the
majority, and promote systematic processing. Consensus is more likely to be accurate
when group members are more critical and systematic processors as a group than as
individuals, when majority and minority viewpoints are carefully considered, when all
information is processed systematically, and when norms supporting dissent are adopted.
Chapter topics
• Conformity to social norms (pp. 309–314)
• The dual functions of conformity to norms: Mastery and connectedness (pp. 314–322)
• How groups form norms: Processes of social influence (pp. 322–328)
• Conformity pressure:Undermining true consensus (pp. 328–338)
• Minority influence: The value of dissent (pp. 338–346)
CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL NORMS
Ask yourself

What is the influence of other group members’ opinions on the thoughts, feelings,
and behaviors of an individual?

What is the difference between privately and publicly conforming?

Are there cultural differences in the views on conformity and the degree of
conformity?
What you need to know
THE FORMATION OF SOCIAL NORMS (SP pp. 309–312)
PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE CONFORMITY (pp. 312–314)

Conformity and false confessions in the interrogation room

Conformity and culture
People are influenced by the reactions of other people. For instance, they rate jokes and
slapstick routines as funnier, and laugh longer and louder, when they are accompanied by
the laughter of an audience.
A basic premise of social life is that many people are wiser and can do better than one,
and we trust committees and boards in their collective wisdom.
However, collectively taken decisions are not always the best decisions.
Groups seek to reach agreement and accept being influenced by others because of their
need to master the world, and the need to be connected by others.
The Formation of Social Norms
(SP pp. 309–312)
Groups have influence on ambiguous (Sherif, 1936, see SP p. 309) and unambiguous
situations (Asch, 1951, 1955, see SP p. 310); people often adopt the opinion of other
group members and converge to social norms.
Weblink: More information on the conformity studies of Asch http://www.age-of-thesage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html
These social norms reflect group evaluations of what is right and wrong.
As a result of converging to groups’ opinions, people become more alike when
interacting in groups.
Public Versus Private Conformity
(SP pp. 312–314)
Conformity is the term used for the convergence of individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and
behavior towards a group’s norms.
Private conformity occurs when people truly believe that the group is right and even
occurs in the absence of group members.
Public conformity occurs when we are pressured and feel we do not have a choice other
than to conform to group norms. When publicly conforming, people pretend to agree, but
privately think the group is wrong.
Conformity and false confessions in the interrogation room
Uncertain people are more likely to conform, even when it means confessing to a crime.
Public conformity is more likely to occur when a witness also agrees.
People can privately conform without realizing it.
Conformity and culture
In individualistic cultures, conformity is seen as something negative; whereas in
collectivistic cultures, conformity is seen as a social glue. Accordingly, the degree of
conformity is higher in collectivistic cultures than it is in individualistic cultures.
CASE STUDY: Conformity and culture [see ch09-CS-01.doc]
So what does this mean?
People conform to the opinion of other group members and converge to social norms,
because of their need to master the world and the need to be connected by others. Private
conformity occurs when people truly believe that the group is right, whereas public
conformity occurs when we are pressured to conform to group norms. When publicly
conforming, people still privately think the group is wrong. The degree of conformity is
higher in collectivistic cultures, where they view conformity as a social glue, than it is in
individualistic cultures, where conformity is seen as something negative.
THE DUAL FUNCTIONS OF CONFORMITY TO NORMS:
MASTERY AND CONNECTEDNESS
Ask yourself

Why are we influenced by other people’s opinions?

What makes the view of others so important?

Why do we care what some people think, but not care about opinions of other
people?
What you need to know
EXPECTING CONSENSUS (SP p. 315)
THE DUAL FUNCTIONS OF CONFORMITY TO NORMS (SP pp. 315–319)

Norms provide mastery insurance

Norms give us feelings of connectedness

Mastery, connectedness, or both?
WHOSE CONSENSUS? THE IMPACT OF REFERENCE GROUPS (SP pp. 319–322)
Expecting Consensus
(SP p. 315)
The key factor to conformity is the expectation of consensus; People tend to overestimate
the extent to which others agree with their views. This is called the false consensus
effect.
RESEARCH ACTIVITY: Expecting consensus [see ch09-RA-01.doc]
Weblink: More information about the false consensus effect
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/false_consensus.htm
People not only expect others to share their opinions, but views of others also influence
people’s opinions; we see the world the same way as others see it.
When views are shared, this agreement increases our confidence that we are seeing things
correctly.
The Dual Functions of Conformity to Norms
(SP pp. 315–319)
Norms provide mastery insurance
People believe that consensus tells us something about reality. Conforming to group
norms therefore satisfies our need for mastery.
When people privately conform because they believe group norms reflect reality, the
group has informational influence.
When the stakes are high, people are even more motivated to make accurate decisions,
and thus conform even more.
Breaking the consensus undermines the influence of the group. In addition, it undermines
confidence in reality, and as a result we might feel confusion, anxiety, and uncertainty.
Norms give us feelings of connectedness
Norms give us feelings of connectedness because conforming to group norms results in
attaining a positive and valued social identity, and in winning respect from other group
members. Confirming thus leads to experiencing a sense of belonging, and it
demonstrates commitment to other group members.
A group has normative influence when people conform to fulfill their need for
connectedness.
People who conform to group norms most strongly are more positively evaluated.
Consequently, when people do not conform to their group norms, it undermines the
identity we derive from that group. People who conform feel happier than people who do
not conform.
Mastery, connectedness, or both?
When doing intellectual tasks, the need for mastery may take precedence over the need
for connectedness, because they require us to focus on facts and information. Establishing
mastery is more important in these tasks than expressing connectedness.
In judgmental tasks, the focus is on value-laden social and personal issues. The need for
connectedness is then more important than the need for mastery.
But, most of the time, the need for mastery and the need for connectedness are fulfilled
simultaneously by conformity to group norms. These functions make conformity to norms
central to success in social life.
RESEARCH ACTIVITY: Mastery and connectedness [see ch09-RA-02.doc]
Whose Consensus? The Impact of Reference Groups
(SP pp. 319–322)
A reference group is the group of people you turn to when needing support for a
decision or evaluation.
Because intellective tasks have a single answer, many people can serve as a reference
group; however, when making judgmental decisions, people turn to those who have
similar attitudes, values, and relationships.
People are more influenced by in-group members than by out-group members, because
we do not expect to agree with out-group members or people we dislike.
Persuasive appeals from in-group members are more likely to be accepted, and are
processed more systematically than appeals from out-group members. When messages
from in-group members are strong, they are most likely to be accepted, while weak
messages are most likely to be rejected. Messages from out-group members are most
likely to be rejected, regardless of the quality of the argument.
Conformity to group norms occurs even when group members are not present, but the
presence of group members increases conformity to group norms even more. The impact
of a group is also higher when members identify strongly with their group, and when the
group interacts frequently and closely.
So what does this mean?
Conforming to group norms (1) satisfies our need for mastery, because people believe
that consensus tells something about reality; and (2) gives us feelings of connectedness,
because conforming to group norms results in attaining a positive and valued social
identity, and in winning respect from other group members. A group has informational
influence when people conform because of the need for mastery, and normative influence
when conforming out of their need for connectedness. The type of task influences which
need is more important and which people serve as a reference group. The presence of
group members, identification, and the frequency and closeness of interaction influence
the amount of conformity to group norms.
HOW GROUPS FORM NORMS: PROCESSES OF SOCIAL
INFLUENCE
Ask yourself

What kind of consensus is most common?

How does consensus happen?

How does information processing affect the group’s position?
What you need to know
GROUP COMPROMISE: TAKING THE MIDDLE GROUND (SP p. 322)
GROUP POLARIZATION: GOING TO NORMATIVE EXTREMES (SP pp. 322–324)

Polarization in the jury room
EXPLAINING POLARIZED NORM FORMATION (SP pp. 324–328)

Superficial processing: Relying on others’ positions

Systematic processing: Attending to both positions and arguments
Group Compromise: Taking the Middle Ground
(SP p. 322)
The effect that the compromised position of a group is more moderate than the initial
views of individual members is termed depolarization. This only happens when opinions
of a group are evenly split.
Group Polarization: Going to Normative Extremes
(SP p. 322–324)
It is more common that most groups initially lean in one direction, because groups are
often formed because of shared views. In addition, evidence might also lean towards one
direction.
Stoner (1961) demonstrated that when people work in groups, decisions are more risky
than when people work alone. However this finding had nothing to do with risk, but was
the first demonstration of group polarization; a group’s initial average position becomes
more extreme after group interaction.
Weblink: More information on group polarization http://www.answers.com/topic/grouppolarization
Polarization in the jury room
Group polarization also takes place in the jury room (see SP p. 324).
Explaining Polarized Norm Formation
(SP pp. 324–328)
Group norms become polarized regardless whether the information that is discussed is
processed superficially or systematically.
Superficial processing: Relying on others’ positions
Group polarization occurs when processing information superficially because (1)
undecided or dissenting group members adopt the majority consensus; and (2) people
want to be the best possible member of the group, and want to represent the group ideal.
Social comparison with other group members makes people realize that they are not
above average, and people adapt their initial position to a more extreme one.
Systematic processing: Attending to both positions and arguments
When a decision is important, one pays attention to the arguments and positions of other
group members. Group polarization occurs in this situation because majority arguments
are more numerous, get more discussion, seem more compelling, and are presented as
more compelling.
 Majority arguments are more numerous: When members lean towards one direction,
more people talk about that specific direction, and about the arguments that should
lead to that direction. So initial preferences bias the kind of arguments discussed,
making the group’s view more extreme. This is termed the persuasive arguments
explanation of group polarization. Polarization becomes more extreme if evidence is
of a high quality and/or novel.
 Majority arguments get more discussion: Arguments that people think others share
are discussed more, because people think information they agree on is most relevant
to what is discussed.
 Majority arguments seem more compelling: Majority arguments are more compelling
because people tend to pay particular attention when different people come to the
same conclusion (repetition). Information raised by a group member becomes
confirmed, so has been socially validated. Unshared information is called into
question because it is not verified by others.
 Majority arguments are presented as more compelling: Next to seeming more
compelling, majority arguments are also presented as more compelling because (1)
information that many group members share is more easily raised in discussion; and
(2) majority arguments are expressed with confidence and presented effectively,
whereas minority views are expressed with hesitation. These minority views may
therefore be seen as more uncertain or as lacking commitment from the person
expressing the view.
So what does this mean?
Depolarization (when the compromised position of a group is more moderate than the
initial views of individual members) happens only when the opinions of a group are
evenly split. It is more common that most groups initially lean in one direction and, after
group discussion, the group’s initial average position becomes more extreme, termed
group polarization. Group polarization occurs when processing information
superficially, because (1) undecided or dissenting group members adopt the majority
consensus; and (2) people want to be the best possible member of the group, and want to
represent the group ideal. Group polarization occurs when processing systematically
because majority arguments are more numerous, get more discussion, seem more
compelling, and are presented as more compelling.
CONFORMITY PRESSURE
Ask yourself

When does group consensus lead to invalid and unreliable decisions?

How can groupthink be avoided?
What you need to know
WHEN CONSENSUS SEEKING GOES AWRY (SP pp. 329–334)

Consensus without consideration: Unthinking reliance on consensus

Consensus without independence: Contamination

Consensus without acceptance: Public conformity

Pluralistic ignorance and health risk behavior
CONSENSUS SEEKING AT ITS WORST: GROUPTHINK (SP pp. 334–338)

Causes and consequences of groupthink

Remedies for faulty consensus seeking
When Consensus Seeking Goes Awry
(SP p. 329–334)
Group consensus is highly valued because we think we can trust the outcome of multiple
individuals coming to the same conclusion. However, we cannot trust a consensus if (1)
people adopt a consensus without carefully considering the relevant information
themselves; (2) people are contaminated by shared biases; or (3) people publicly conform
to norms.
Consensus without consideration: Unthinking reliance on consensus
When different people independently come to the same conclusion, consensus is valid.
However, when people do not consider relevant information themselves, consensus is
reached without consideration, and does not have much value.
Consensus without independence: Contamination
People are less influenced by views from a group than by views from separate
individuals. This is perhaps because of the possibility for group consensus to be
contaminated.
In contrast to trusting consensus when reached by separate individuals, we expect to
agree more with similar others. So similarity in terms of features that are relevant for
decision making, but difference in other aspects, is important for trusting a consensus.
People therefore trust in-group members’ decisions more than decisions reached by outgroup members; in-group members are seen as simultaneously more similar and yet
different, while out-group members are viewed as similar to one another.
Consensus without acceptance: Public conformity
People often go along with group norms to get along (see SP p. 333). This destroys the
reliability of the consensus.
Disagreeing people feel fear, and anticipate negative reactions.
A single supporter helps us to resist majority pressure.
When publicly conforming to a group’s norm that no one privately endorses, pluralistic
ignorance exists.
Weblink: More information about pluralistic ignorance
http://www.answers.com/topic/pluralistic-ignorance
Pluralistic ignorance and health risk behavior
Pluralistic ignorance may contribute to social and health-related problems, like drinking,
risky sexual behaviors, and illegal drug use. In order to prevent this from happening,
people should become aware of what others are really thinking.
Consensus Seeking at Its Worst: Groupthink
(SP pp. 334–338)
When a group becomes more interested in reaching agreement than in how agreement is
achieved, ineffective decisions may be made. When this desire or pressure to reach an
agreement interferes with effective decision making, this is termed groupthink.
Causes and consequences of groupthink
Groupthink situations can start out as ordinary situations, and occur when (1) consensus
is achieved without consideration of all available evidence; (2) consensus is contaminated
because members’ views are not independent; or (3) consensus is achieved by publicly
conforming without acceptance. This produces an illusion of unanimity rather than true
consensus. Pluralistic ignorance also reigns when thinking everyone else accepts the
group decision.
Weblink: Symptoms of groupthink according to Janis and Mann (1977)
http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~fulmer/groupthink.htm
CASE STUDY: Groupthink [see ch09-CS-02.doc]
Remedies for faulty consensus seeking
Groupthink can be avoided by making sure all available evidence is considered;
dissenting information should not be avoided or suppressed. Appointing a devil’s
advocate can also help.
A second way in which groupthink can be avoided is through group membership being
selected for diversity, making sure members’ views are independent from each other.
Finally, people should state their private opinion in public votes, tolerance for
disagreement should become higher, and the role of powerful and respected members
should be minimized.
So what does this mean?
A consensus is invalid if (1) people adopt a consensus without carefully considering the
relevant information themselves; (2) people are contaminated by shared biases; or (3)
people publicly conform to norms. When publicly conforming to a group’s norm that no
one privately endorses, pluralistic ignorance exists. Groupthink situations, where the
desire or pressure to reach an agreement interferes with effective decision making, occur
when (1) consensus is achieved without consideration of all available evidence; (2)
consensus is contaminated because members’ views are not independent; or (3)
consensus is achieved by publicly conforming without acceptance.
MINORITY INFLUENCE: THE VALUE OF DISSENT
Ask yourself

Can minority influences alter consensus reached in groups?

When are minority views most influential?

Do minorities and majorities influence others using the different processes?
What you need to know
SUCCESSFUL MINORITY INFLUENCE (SP pp. 338–343)

Offering an alternative consensus

Negotiating similarity and difference

Promoting systematic processing

Minority influence in the courtroom
PROCESSES OF MINORITY AND MAJORITY INFLUENCE (SP pp. 344–345)
BEYOND MINORITY INFLUENCE: USING NORMS TO STRENGTHEN
CONSENSUS (SP pp. 345–346)
Successful Minority Influence
(SP pp. 338–343)
Minority viewpoints can alter a group’s consensus when they offer an alternative
consensus, remain consistent, have a balance between similarity and difference from the
majority, and promote systematic processing.
Offering an alternative consensus
Minority views can exert influence by undermining confidence in the accuracy of the
majority consensus, because people expect everyone to agree.
For the minority to be taken seriously (1) the alternative view must be a consensus,
because agreement among minority members signals that their view is viable; and (2)
they must remain loyal to their consensus, because consistency conveys commitment to
the viability of an alternative position.
When the minority viewpoint successfully influences the majority, the effect can go
beyond the specific issue.
Negotiating similarity and difference
The minority have to find a balance between offering a consensus that clearly differs from
the majority viewpoint, while they themselves are not being perceived as different from
the majority.
The minority first have to be part of the in-group to establish credibility before dissenting.
This can be done by agreeing on important issues.
The minority lose power if minority group members are thought to share a common bias,
if the minority viewpoint is contaminated, and if out-group membership is made salient.
The minority have more influence when they are represented by a diverse group of
people.
Promoting systematic processing
Minority dissent promotes systematic processing because plausible alternative views
create uncertainty and stimulate majority members to seek additional information, process
in greater depth, and make more integrative and considered decisions. Research has
supported this empirically (see SP pp. 341–342).
Minority views can change majority attitudes in a direct way. However, attitudes
concerning indirectly related issues are changed more often than attitudes of the topic
under discussion, because (1) group members may systematically process the information
that affects other information, but may resist openly agreeing with the dissenters because
of mastery and connectedness functions; and (2) people hearing dissenting views may
think more broadly, consider alternatives, go beyond the given information, and diverge
from the topic, thus becoming more creative.
Minority influence in the courtroom
Although jurors in a real trial may act differently and may be more considerate, it
appeared from studies using mock juries (see SP p. 343) that when a decision requires to
be supported by the majority, minority influence is weakened, and the quality of decisions
is reduced in comparison to the situation where a decision requires unanimity.
Processes of Minority and Majority Influence
(SP pp. 344–345)
Majority and minority views influence others by the same processes; both can be accepted
privately and generate public conformity, both can satisfy our needs for mastery and
connectedness, and both can encourage superficial or systematic processing.
Beyond Minority Influence: Using Norms to Strengthen Consensus
(SP pp. 345–346)
Consensus is more likely to be accurate when group members are more critical and
systematic processors as a group than as individuals, when majority and minority
viewpoints are carefully considered, when all information is processed systematically,
and when norms supporting dissent are adopted.
Weblink: More about minority influence
http://www.changingminds.org/explanations/theories/minority_influence.htm
So what does this mean?
Minority viewpoints can alter a group’s consensus when they offer an alternative
consensus, remain consistent, have a balance between similarity and difference from the
majority, and promote systematic processing. Consensus is more likely to be accurate
when group members are more critical and systematic processors as a group than as
individuals, when majority and minority viewpoints are carefully considered, when all
information is processed systematically, and when norms supporting dissent are adopted.